Nonexistent trend alert

The Denver Post is doing a series on the "swing counties" of Colorado. These are the places that will allegedly determine how the state votes in November. (I don't know why that would be the case. It's not like counties have some sort of electoral college system. But whatever.) One of the profiled counties is Garfield County, located on the western slope and home to crunchy Carbondale and conservative Parachute.

The basic thrust of the article is that the county is traditionally somewhat conservative, but there is an increasing number of independent voters in the area who seem to be leaning left lately. As the reporter, Nancy Lofholm, observes:

Forty-two percent of Garfield County voters are unaffiliated, and that category has been steadily growing. Even double-digit, real estate-squeezing and traffic-snarling growth hasn't been a boon to the major political parties. A decade ago, the county had 8,470 Republicans. It now has 9,634. Democrats had 6,565 and currently have 7,153.

It's rare that an article contains visual evidence undercutting its text, but here it is (at left.) It suggests that there was some growth in the number of unaffiliateds in the 1990s, but that number has been stable over the last decade. Actually, the numbers have been pretty stable for all party affiliations over the past decade, although more people register as voters during presidential elections. But I really don't see anything to support the claim that the percent of independents has been "steadily growing."

What is interesting, although unreported, is that the county grew by 18.5 percent between 2000 and 2006 without any appreciable increase in the number of registered voters. Who are these new residents? Children? Non-citizens? That might make for an interesting county profile, and it could actually be backed up by data.

Money

Obama took some flak for "playing the race card" after he said the following:

The only way they figure they're going to win this election is if they make you scared of me. So what they're saying is, "Well, we know we're not very good but you can't risk electing Obama. You know, he's new, he's... doesn't look like the other presidents on the currency, you know, he's got a, he's got a funny name.

Yeah, Obama was way off base there. Oh, wait, here's a new John McCain ad:

(h/t Ezra Klein)

Shirtless blogging

Damn, it's hot.

The jerky indicator

Spied at the Cherry Creek farmer's market this morning: pineapple chipotle elk jerky. This is evidence that Colorado is ready for change and will vote overwhelmingly for Obama this November.

Okay, I'm reaching.

The most beautiful people on Capitol Hill

I forgot how annoying Hill culture can be. But this is a nice reminder.

More on forecasting

I've heard from a few fellow Democrats who seem to feel that Obama is a far better and more inspiring candidate than McCain and can't understand why Obama isn't 10-20 points ahead. A little perspective: presidential elections are rarely won by such large margins. Twenty points is considered a landslide. The only candidates who've gotten into that range in modern times are Lyndon Johnson (1964) and Ronald Reagan (1984), both of whom were popular incumbents running for reelection during economic booms.

Clinton beat Dole by less than nine points. Bush beat Dukakis by about the same margin. Clinton only beat Bush by about five. And 2000 and 2004 were nailbiters. In fact, the last non-incumbent candidate to win by more than ten points was Dwight Eisenhower in 1952.

The forecast I posted earlier is pretty consistent with recent polling, showing Obama winning by around four or five points.

Late update: See here. I would also add that, with the economic indicator I'm using, the economy is doing about as well as it was in 2004. Not stellar, but not a recession, either.

My presidential election forecast

Using economic growth (as measured with per capita real disposable income growth between the 2nd quarter prior to the election year and the 2nd quarter of the election year), presidential Gallup approval on Labor Day (I'm guessing Bush will be at around 30), a variable measuring how many terms the president's party has held the White House, and a variable measuring whether there is currently a war going on, I predict...

John McCain will receive 47.7% of the two-party vote.

This estimation has a standard error of 2.4, giving McCain roughly a 16% chance of getting over 50% of the vote.

Keep in mind all that this equation doesn't account for (campaign quality, the color of the candidates' skin, media coverage, etc.). Still, I nailed the 2004 prediction.